Does personalising a study invitation letter by including a potential participants’ name and address improve study recruitment?

Not Applicable

Completed

• Conditions: Recruitment to trials; Not Applicable

• Registration Number: ISRCTN18404129
• Lead Sponsor: ppsala University

Brief Summary

2020 Protocol article in https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32420511 protocol (added 19/05/2020) 2022 Results article in https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35249543/ (added 08/03/2022)

Detailed Description

Not available

Study Timeline

• Results First Posted: 1900-01-01
• Study Start: 2019-11-25
• Study Completion: 2021-03-02
• Last Update Posted: 21 November 2022

Recruitment & Eligibility

• Status: Completed
• Sex: All
• Target Recruitment: 56

Inclusion Criteria

Parents of children diagnosed with cancer when aged 0-18 years, who have completed cancer treatment three months to five years previously, residing in Sweden

Exclusion Criteria

Does not meet inclusion criteria

Study & Design

• Study Type: Interventional
• Study Design: Not specified

Primary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
The effectiveness of the personalised invitation letter compared with the standard invitation letter, defined as the recruitment rate, being the proportion of participants in each intervention group that are enrolled into the ENGAGE study.

Secondary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
<br> The proportion of parents in each group:<br> 1. Expressing an interest in participating in the ENGAGE study<br> 2. Opting out of the ENGAGE study<br> 3. Completing the reasons for non-participation questionnaire<br> 4. Completing the eligibility interview<br> 5. Completing the baseline assessment<br> 6. Retained at (1) 12 weeks and (2) 6 months follow-up<br> 7. Requiring a telephone reminder at (1) recruitment; (2) post-treatment (12 weeks); and (3) 6-months follow-up<br>